The Dynamic of Social Capital, Health and Economy

The dynamic of social capital,

health and Jan Gilbertson economy Julie Manning

Volunteering, social capital and civic engagement in South Yorkshire coalfield communities The dynamic of social capital, health and economy

Volunteering, social capital and civic engagement in South Yorkshire coalfield communities

Jan Gilbertson Julie Manning

April 2006

Acknowledgements eatly ticipation in eation of social capital t (The dynamic of social epor e coalfield communities, 2005) gr ted the development of this further study. orkshir ried out for the earlier r e would like to acknowledge the contribution of members e would like to acknowledge the contribution ea Based Initiatives on the cr the nine communities. W us on the earlier of the research team who worked with social capital report, particularly Geoff Green, who has of this report,provided advice and commented on drafts and Mike originally developed the empowerment Mike Grimsley. index and the notions of horizontal and vertical trust which figure towards the end of this report. Finally thanks go to all those representatives who were inter- ested in exploring how levels of participation might relate to particular of social capital in the communities and aspects who suppor assisted the writing of chapter four: levels of par assisted the writing of chapter four: levels This report which examined supplements two earlier studies Coalfield areas of the South Yorkshire social capital within and Rotherham. It is financed by the Doncaster Barnsley, utilises survey for these areas and (PCTs) Primary Trusts Care data collected as partsocial capital studies. of the earlier Group and, in Thanks are due to the original Steering Cathy Read who supported the devel- to Dr. particular, and helped the Centre for Regional and opment of this study, Economic Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University, from Barnsley, secure additional funding for the project Rotherham and Doncaster PCTs. also wish to thank the regeneration managers in each of We of the impact of the nine communities. Their assessments Ar car of regeneration in capital health and economy: The impact South Y

Contents 31 23 25 27 29 ...... ea? and who is ...... ticipation . . . . t . ticipation . . . . . moving in? Social networks, reciprocal help and support and community par Measuring attitudes towards the area participationAttitudes towards the area and community Who wants to move out of the ar Measuring trust and community participation Trust Measuring social networks and reciprocal help and suppor community par support and community participation Appendices 9. Attitudes towards the area and 10. Conclusions and potential policy implications 7. participation and community Trust 8. Social networks, reciprocal help and 9 1 5 7 21 11 17 ...... ficacy ...... ticipation ...... ticipation ...... ticipation ticipation ticipation in the nine communities ticipates? Civic engagement, efficacy and community par Measuring civic engagement and ef Who is participating? Who is participating in what? Levels of par Levels of participation in different types of groups Modelling levels of participation in the nine communities IMD scores and levels of participation Contextualising the nine communities Measuring community par Levels of community par Levels of participation in different types of groups Executive summary Introduction Background The 2000 and 2004 Surveys community par Who par nine communities 6. efficacy Civic engagement, and 5. 4. Levels of participation in the 3. Community participation 2. The nine communities 1. Introduction and background

E x e c u t i v e

s 1. Introduction and background Although the mixed areas are generally more prosperous, u 7 m Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004 scores indicate Chapter 1 describes the main aims of the report, provides that all nine areas have more deprivation than the national m

background information and details of the 2000 and 2004 average. Only Brinsworth has less deprivation, on average, a South Yorkshire social capital surveys from which the data than South Yorkshire as a whole. r y has been analysed. The communities are also typified by high levels of The main aim of the report is to explore the relationship unemployment, low average life expectancy, high levels of between volunteering or community participation on the one teenage pregnancies, high levels of premature deaths attrib- hand and civic engagement, efficacy, trust, neighbourhood utable to circulatory disease and low levels of educational reciprocity and attitudes towards the area on the other. attainment.

The work builds on two earlier studies. In 2000, Sheffield All nine communities have regeneration teams and are under- Hallam University conducted a study of social capital in nine going a range of Area Based Initiatives (ABIs). coalfield communities of the South Yorkshire Coalfield. In 2004, Sheffield Hallam University was commissioned to build upon the baseline established in 2000 by re-examining social capital in the nine communities. 3. Community participation The 2000 survey interviewed 4219 residents across the nine communities and a response rate of 46 per cent was Chapter 3 explains how community participation was achieved. The 2004 survey interviewed 3771 residents measured in the 2000 and 2004 surveys. The chapter then across the same nine communities, of which 1071 were presents levels of participation and explores how levels have interviewed in both 2000 and 2004 (longitudinal element). changed between 2000 and 2004. The response rate in 2004 was 58 per cent overall and 55 per cent for the longitudinal element. Key findings from the 2004 survey include: I 42 per cent of residents are involved with local organisations I 39 per cent are participating with groups 2. The Study areas I 15 per cent indicate they are participating with two or more types of groups This study covers nine communities within the ex-coalfield area of South Yorkshire now covered by the South Yorkshire I Hobbies and social groups and sports groups are the Objective 1 Programme funded by the European Union. most popular types of groups (16 per cent hobbies and Chapter 2 contextualises these communities. social groups and 13 per cent sports groups) I Five per cent take part in adult education groups The nine communities, three from each of three boroughs (Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham) were chosen in 2000 The findings appear to represent a significant increase in to reflect the diversity of the coalfield. Two areas (Darfield levels of participation between 2000 and 2004 as only 21 and Brinsworth) are classified as mixed, two (Kendray and per cent of residents were involved in local groups in 2000. Intake) are inner urban and five (Thurnscoe, Denaby, However, caution needs to be applied when interpreting Moorends, Maltby and Rawmarsh) are pit villages. these change figures. It is, perhaps, likely that responses in 2004 are being influenced by the addition of a second, more probing question about the types of groups residents are involved with.

1 E

x 4. Levels of participation in 5. Who participates?

e the nine communities c Chapter 5 aims to understand who within the nine commu- u Chapter 4 explores levels of community participation in each nities is participating and what types of groups they are t i of the nine communities and examines how these levels, participating in. v potentially, relate to the initiatives and projects taking place e

in the community. The chapter ends by exploring the The importance of exploring the different types of groups s relationship between levels of deprivation and levels of people are engaged with in addition to the standard general u participation. questions about participation is illustrated. Key findings m include: m Levels of participation are found to vary widely across the I Women, the more educated, owner occupiers and a nine communities. Key findings include:

r private renters are the most likely to participate overall y I Residents from Rawmarsh are most likely to be involved I Women are more likely to participate in community, with local organisations adult education, health and religious groups as well as I Darfield residents are most likely to be involved with two in groups for children and older people. However, men or more types of groups, hobbies or social groups, are more likely to participate in hobbies or social sports groups and groups for older people groups and political or trade union groups I Residents from Moorends are most likely to have taken I Older people are more likely to be involved with groups part in groups overall and participate in children's for older people, religious groups and community groups and health groups groups but less likely to be involved with sports groups I Rawmarsh residents are most likely to participate in I Those with higher levels of education are more likely to religious groups participate in all types of groups. This is particularly true for adult education groups, health related groups and I Kendray residents are least likely to participate in all political or trade union groups types of groups except for hobbies and/or social groups (for which Intake residents are least likely to participate) and community groups (for which Denaby residents are least likely to participate) I There are no significant differences between the areas 6. Civic engagement, efficacy and in levels of participation in adult education or political community participation and trade union groups Chapter 6 describes how civic engagement and efficacy is Contextual information collected from the nine regeneration measured and then explores the relationship between civic managers provides insightful details about the types and engagement, efficacy and participation. levels of community based activities taking place. For many of the communities, this information is reflected in the survey Through the use of an index, civic engagement and efficacy findings. are found to be strongly related to participation. When the individual components of the index are considered Exploration of the relationship between levels of community separately, feeling informed about local affairs is more participation and IMD scores indicate that: strongly associated with participation than either of the other two components (feeling satisfied with the amount of control I Overall levels of participation are not related to IMD over decisions that affect personal life and feeling able to scores in the nine communities influence decisions that affect the neighbourhood). I But, there is a negative relationship between IMD scores and participation in two or more types of groups, adult The chapter concludes by raising questions about the education groups, health groups and religious groups relationship between feeling informed about local affairs and participation.

2 E

7. Trust and community 9. Attitudes towards the area and x

participation community participation e c Chapter 7 describes how trust is measured and then explores Chapter 9 explores the relationship between attitudes u t the relationship between trust and community participation. towards the local area and levels of participation. It also i considers which cohorts of people want to move out of the v e

Horizontal trust, or bonding social capital, is found to have area and which are moving into the area. more influence on overall participation than vertical trust, or s linking social capital. A concerning relationship is found when participation levels u m for those who want to move out of the area are analysed. Different types of social capital may influence the type of Residents who want to move out of the area are more likely m participation. Those with high horizontal trust are more likely to be involved with organisations, participate generally in a to be involved with: groups and participate in adult education groups. r y I Hobbies and social groups Those who want to move are: I Sports groups I Younger I Community groups I Private and social renters I Groups for children I More educated Those with high vertical trust are more likely to be involved I But, work status is not a significant predictor of wanting with: to move I Adult education groups However, the picture is relatively encouraging as the charac- I Religious groups teristics of in-movers are not dissimilar to those wanting to move out. Residents who have moved into the area within the last year are: I Younger 8. Social networks, reciprocal I Social or, in particular, private renters help and support and I On balance, more educated community participation I More likely to participate in adult education groups Chapter 8 describes how social networks and reciprocal help and support (or reciprocity) are measured and then explores the relationship between social networks, reciprocity and community participation. 10.Conclusions and key messages Of the three reciprocity questions explored (do neighbours help each other, if you needed a lift urgently could you ask Chapter 10, summarises the report and in light of the someone and have you done a favour for a neighbour) only findings from the report suggests a number of key messages having done a favour is strongly related to levels of partici- for the community and voluntary sector operating in these pation. Those who have done a favour are more likely to areas. participate.

Social networks appear to be more strongly related to levels of participation. Both indicators (knowing people in the area and agreeing with the statement that people from different backgrounds in the area get on) are positively related to participation.

3

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Introduction During the launch event for the ‘The dynamic of social 1 a capital, health and economy’2 report, the question of what n

This report aims to explore the relationship between volun- levels of community participation were like in each of the d

teering on the one hand and civic engagement, efficacy, nine communities and how these related to social capital in trust, neighbourhood reciprocity and attitudes towards the the areas was raised. This aspect of the data had not been b local area on the other. fully explored partly because of limitations on time and a c

resource but evidence from area managers operating in the k

The report outlines how volunteering, civic engagement, trust nine localities had suggested that successful regeneration g and social capital have been operationalised. It then was influenced by the degree of community engagement. r o

highlights the statistical relationships that exist between each u

of these components of social capital and participation. There was general consensus at the launch that further inves- n

tigation of the levels of community participation would be d Finally the report highlights possible policy implications of worthwhile, and that the data collected as part of the social these relationships. capital surveys, presented a great opportunity to explore the relationship between volunteering and social capital in the nine communities.

Background Given current debates around citizenship, social capital and social and community cohesion, such analysis is likely to be In June 2004 Sheffield Hallam University was commissioned extremely timely and will potentially have important implica- to re-examine social capital in nine coalfield communities of tions for policy makers. The Home Office have made a the South Yorkshire coalfield. The study, reported in ‘The 'commitment to increase voluntary and community sector dynamic of social capital, health and economy’1, builds activity under PSA (Public Service Agreement) 8 (“To increase upon a baseline established in 2000. voluntary and community sector activity, including increasing community participation, by 5% by 2006”) and PSA6 (“To Both these studies reflected a determination by public author- increase voluntary and community engagement, especially ities to reinvest in the ex-coalfield communities of South among those at risk of social exclusion”). These PSAs cover Yorkshire and the need to evaluate how successful the inter- the period 2003/04 to 2007/083. 2005 has also been vention by the local and health authorities to replenish social designated the UK Year of the Volunteer. capital had been.

Findings from the studies suggested that: social capital contributes to health and prosperity; investment in social The 2000 and 2004 surveys capital is a vital part of any regeneration programme; investment in social capital can enhance levels of human As already mentioned two surveys were undertaken for the capital and help people into work; social capital is an asset earlier social capital studies. They represent ‘the largest such which must be replenished to promote economic regener- surveys ever undertaken in England’ (John McIvor, Chief ation and neighbourhood sustainability; social capital Executive, Rotherham Primary Care Trust, 2005). encourages participation in the labour market through better mental health, a key factor behind high rates of long term Full details about the sample statistics for both surveys are illness; community safety is improved by increased levels of provided in the ‘The dynamic of social capital, health and social capital. economy’ report. In summary:

1 Gilbertson, J, Green, G, Grimsley, G and Manning, J (2005) The dynamic of social capital health and economy: the impact of regeneration in South Yorkshire coalfield communities, Sheffield Hallam University. 2 Green, G, Grimsley, M and Suokas (2000) Social capital health and economy in South Yorkshire coalfield communities, Sheffield Hallam University. 3 (Home Office (2005) Voluntary and Community: The State of the Sector Panel: Progress Autumn 2005 [online] last accessed on 16 December 2005 at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/sosp.html). 5 I n • The first survey (2000), interviewed 4219 residents t across the nine communities r o • In 2000, an overall response rate of 46 per cent was d

u achieved c

t • The second survey (2004) interviewed 3771 residents i

o across the nine communities, of which 1071

n respondents were interviewed in both surveys – this is

know as the ‘longitudinal’ or ‘panel’ element and a enabled a robust assessment of changes in social n

d capital and its determinants between 2000 and 2004.

b • In 2004, the response rate was 58 per cent overall and

a 55 per cent for the longitudinal element c k g r o u n d

6 T h e

n

M18 i n e

A1 Moorendsoorends

M1 c o

Barnsley m

2 m

DarfieldDarDarfieldfield M180 u KendrayKendray n i

ThurnscoeThurThurnscoenscoe t IntakeIntake i e s DenabyDenaby Doncaster RawmarshRawmarsh Motorways

MaltbyMaltby Ward type Coalfield Rotherham BrinsworthBrinsworBrinsworthth Pit village Other

Figure 2.1: South Yorkshire Coalfield Communities, 1981

Contextualising the nine communities The nine communities, three from each of three boroughs (Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham) were originally This study covers nine communities within the ex-coalfield selected in 2000 by the Social Capital Steering Group. area of South Yorkshire now covered by the South Yorkshire They were chosen to reflect the diversity of the Coalfield Objective 1 Programme funded by the European Union. The using a schema developed by a Barnsley MBC represen- 2005 report ‘The dynamic of social capital, health and tative. Deprived areas could either be ‘inner urban’ or ‘pit economy’ provided a full overview of the areas together with villages’. Mixed areas are generally more prosperous. nine individual community profiles. Within this report a summary of the overview is presented in order to provide Figure 2.2: Study areas context to the findings. Area Type Ward 2004 Borough Following a convention developed by Sheffield Hallam University and adopted by the UK Government Task Force, Darfield Mixed Darfield Barnsley ‘pit village’ defines a ward where over 25 per cent of males Kendray Inner urban Stairfoot Barnsley worked in mining. ‘Coalfield communities’ defines a ward Thurnscoe Pit village Dearne North Barnsley where between 10 and 20 per cent of males worked in Denaby Pit village Conisbrough Doncaster mining. The map shows how the mining communities were & Denaby distributed across the 65 South Yorkshire electoral wards in Intake Inner urban Town Moor Doncaster 1981. Thurnscoe, one of our study areas, had the highest Moorends Pit village Stainforth & Doncaster proportion of males working in mining; two-thirds of all Moorends resident men worked in the mines. Taken as a whole, coal Brinsworth Mixed Brinsworth & Rotherham mining engendered high levels of solidarity in the work place Catcliffe and high levels of community spirit in the villages and towns Maltby Pit village Maltby Rotherham which housed its workforce. Rawmarsh Inner/pit Rawmarsh Rotherham 7 T M18 h e

A1 MoorendsMoorends n M1 i n Barnsley e c o DarfieldDarDarfieldfield M180 m KendrayKendray

m ThurnscoeThurThurnscoenscoe Intakentake u n

i Denabyenaby t Doncaster i e RawmarshRawmarsh

s Motorways

Index of Multiple MaltbyMaltby Deprivation score 2000

Rotherham BrinsworthBrinsworBrinsworthth 52.6 to 69.3 40.2 to 52.6 28.4 to 40.2 14.3 to 28.4

Figure 2.3: IMD (2000) Score Index of Multiple deprivation 2000

The Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a IMD scores can be used to place our nine communities measure of multiple deprivations at the small area level within a wide socio-economic context. Figure 2.4, indicates produced by the Social Disadvantaged Research Centre current levels of deprivation in the nine communities and (SDRC) for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). compares this to national average. In 2004 all nine of our The Index is a Super Output Area (SOA) level measure of communities have higher levels of deprivation than a multiple deprivations and is made up of seven SOA level national average. The relative position of the nine study domain indices. The seven domains relate to income depri- areas to each other is similar to 2000. Denaby and Kendray vation, employment deprivation, health deprivation and remain the two most deprived areas. For example, Denaby disability, education, skills and training deprivation, barriers has an IMD score of 66 compared with a national average to housing and services, living environment deprivation and of 22 and an average across the nine areas of 40. crime. Higher scores indicate more deprived areas. Brinsworth is the least deprived area and has less depri- vation, on average, than South Yorkshire as a whole. However, it should be noted that the IMD score reveals Figure 2.4: Index of Multiple Deprivation higher levels of deprivation in Brinsworth compared with the score 2004 national average. 80 The earlier social capital report also found that the nine Coalfield communities National average communities were, generally, typified by high levels of 60 unemployment, low average life expectancy, high levels of e

r teenage pregnancies, high levels of premature deaths attrib- o c s

40 utable to circulatory disease and low levels of educational D M I attainment.

20 All nine communities have regeneration teams and are under- going a range of Area Based Initiatives (ABIs). Initiatives and 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) R R R R B B B projects common to the nine communities include; Single D D D ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

y h E y s e y d e t l

r b a d k W o b t h e r

l Regeneration Budget, Sure Start Plus, Health Action Zones,

o i n c a s a f t d h s a r e r n w s n r n n a I r s a e r M o e a n u m

D Sports Action Zones, Youth Inclusion Programme, i D o K r h m w T B M a w R

a Communities against drugs, Drug Action teams and Youth R Music Action Zones. 8 C o m m u n i t y

This chapter aims to explain how community participation is Levels of community participation p

3 a measured in this study, present levels of participation found r

and explore how levels have changed between 2000 and In 2004, 42 per cent of residents indicated they had been t i

2004. involved with local organisations in the last three years and c

39 per cent had taken part in groups (see Figure 3.1). i p

Fifteen per cent also indicate they had been involved with a

two or more types of groups. t i

Measuring community participation o

These figures represent a significant increase from 2000 n Levels of community participation were measured using two when only 21 per cent of the sample indicated they had survey questions. The first question taken from the Office of been involved with local organisations. This rise is reflected National Statistics (ONS) harmonised questionnaire was in the responses from the longitudinal element of the survey asked in both the 2000 and 2004 surveys: with an increase from 27 per cent to 57 per cent over the four year period. ‘Have you been involved in any local organisation(s) or activities over the last 3 years?’

In 2004 a second question, again taken from the ONS Figure 3.1: Levels of community participation harmonised questions, was added to gain more detailed 50 2004 understanding of community participation in our areas: 45 2000 40 ‘Which of these categories on this card best describes any 35 s groups you have taken part in over the last 3 years? t n 30 e d n

o 25 p

I s

Hobbies/social clubs e r 20 I % Sports/exercise groups, including taking part, coaching 15 or going to watch 10 I Local community or neighbourhood groups 5 I 0 Groups for children or young people Local Groups 2+ groups organisations I Adult education groups I Groups for older people I Environmental groups These findings appear to indicate that participation levels I Health, disability and welfare groups have increased substantially across the nine communities. However, caution needs to be applied when interpreting I Political groups these change figures. At the national level, in 2000, 21 per 4 I Trade Union groups cent of respondents were involved with local organisations, a similar proportion as that found in the South Yorkshire I Religious groups, including going to a place of worship coalfields at the time. Although the national question used in or belonging to a religious based group the General Household Survey (GHS) is not identical to the I Other group (please specify) one asked within our survey 5, it provides the best benchmark available.

Have levels of involvement increased substantially in these nine communities to a level that is well above comparable

4 General Household Survey – Social Capital Module 2000. national figures? Or is the question in our survey picking up 5 General household survey – social capital module 2000 question asks: ‘Have you been something different in 2004? Perhaps more likely, responses involved in any local organisations on a voluntary basis over the last three years (i.e. work for which you are not paid, except for expenses)?’ in 2004 are being influenced by the addition of the second 9 C

o participation question which, through probing deeper into

m the types of groups people have taken part in, provides a better understanding to the respondents of what is meant by m community participation. Indeed, 95 per cent of those who u said they had taken part in local groups also indicated they n had been involved with local organisations. This could i t actually suggest that the level of participation in our nine y communities may have been under reported in 2000.

p

a Due to the risk of a potential difference in respondents’ under- r

t standing of the question in 2000 and 2004, this report i

c therefore restricts it’s analysis to the 2004 survey. i p a t i

o Levels of participation in different

n types of groups

As noted above, the 2004 survey introduces a new question which gathers information about the type of group(s) residents are involved with. Figure 3.2 presents the levels of participation in 11 different types of groups. Perhaps unsur- prisingly, hobbies/social and sports groups are the most popular types of groups; 16 per cent of residents have taken part in hobbies/social groups and 13 per cent in sports groups.

Figure 3.2: Levels of participation in groups 18

16

14

12 s t n e

d 10 n o p s e

r 8

% 6

4

2 l l s s s 0 s y n h n e t t t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r d C t v l l T n u O E d A

10 L e v e l s

o f

p a

This chapter will explore levels of community participation in Barnsley r

4 t each of the nine communities, examine how these levels, i potentially, relate to the initiatives and projects taking place c i in the respective areas and how levels compare with Darfield p averages for the nine communities combined. The chapter a t

ends by exploring the relationship between levels of depri- Levels of participation in Darfield are thought to be i vation and levels of participation. improving: o n

i

‘Things are moving forward in terms of community n

involvement and the development of projects based on t

Levels of participation in the nine community consultation’ (Darfield Regeneration Manager, h

communities 2005) e

Overall levels of participation vary widely across the nine Specific initiatives include a family support strategy and a n i communities (see Figure 4.1). For example, 53 per cent of recently built, large (£1.5m), health centre which opened in n residents in Rawmarsh are involved with local organisations, April 2004. e

some 26 percentage points higher than for Kendray (27 per c cent). These comments and initiatives seem to be reflected in the o survey findings. Darfield has relatively high levels of partici- m pation (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2) and has the highest m Figure 4.1: Levels of participation in the

proportion of residents involved in two or more groups (23 u nine communities per cent), hobbies and social groups (22 per cent), groups n

60 i

for older people (eight per cent), environmental groups (two t

Organisations i

per cent) and religious groups (eight per cent). The area also e 50 Groups 2+ groups has above average levels of participation in organisations, s sports groups, groups for children, adult education and 40 s t

n health groups. e d n o

p 30 s e r

% Figure 4.2: Levels of participation in Darfield 20 25 Darfield 10 20 Average s t n e

d 15 n

0 s y y y h h e e d t l o s d k r b a b o r t e r p n l a i c o a a t f s d s e a r n n r e w n n I m r e a s r

o 10 e M

u n w D D o i K % h r a T M R B 5 l l s s s 0 s y n h n e t t t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e

Levels of participation in different l i c S

m l i o H m o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a types of groups i

r d C t v l l T n u O E d A The work undertaken for the earlier social capital report involved collecting contextual information from local regen- eration managers about the impact of ABIs on social capital Kendray formation. This information, together with area profile data (see Gilbertson et al, 2005) contains insightful details about Participation in Kendray is being actively encouraged: the types and levels of community based activities taking place. Here we re-consider this information in the light of ‘A key principle of the Kendray Neighbourhood findings on the levels of participation in different types of Management Pathfinder is to ensure community engagement groups. at all levels’ (Kendray Regeneration Manager, 2005). 11 L

e Numerous initiatives and projects have been, or are, taking pation in children’s groups (12 per cent), which is perhaps a

v place including a football complex which opened in 2000, reflection of the activities being undertaken in the area by

e the development of a range of outdoor play and recreational Sure Start. The community also has relatively high levels of l

s facilities, Neighbourhood Wardens scheme and Sure Start. participation in groups overall (27 per cent) and in particular

in hobbies and social groups (19 per cent), community o

f In contrast, the survey findings indicate that Kendray has the groups (9 per cent) and groups for older people (5 per cent).

overall lowest proportion of resident’s actively participating However, levels of participation in health groups and sports p

a compared with the other eight communities (see Figures 4.1 groups – which perhaps could have been improved by the

r and 4.3). Specifically, Kendray has the lowest proportion of activities of the sports development worker and the HAZ t residents involved with organisations (27 per cent), groups initiative – is only around the average level for the nine i c (18 per cent), two or more types of groups (seven per cent), communities. i p hobbies and social groups (14 per cent), sports groups (six a per cent), groups for children (three per cent), adult

t Figure 4.4: Levels of participation in Thurnscoe

i education groups (two per cent), groups for older people o (one per cent), environmental groups (zero per cent), health 25 n Thurnscoe groups (one per cent) and religious groups (two per cent). 20 Average s t i n n e

d 15 n o However, these findings are, perhaps, to some extent p s t e

r 10

h explained by the general recognition that although Kendray %

e has made substantial improvements it still has some way to 5

go: n l l s s s 0 s y n h n e t t t l a a u n r e l i i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H ‘Although it is generally felt that significant positive changes m o p u e P h e n

m e H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r d C have taken place in the neighbourhood, it should be noted t v l l T

n u O E d c

that there is still a long way to go in Kendray’ (Kendray A o Regeneration Manager, 2005) m m Figure 4.3: Levels of participation in Kendray

u Doncaster 25 n

i Kendray

t 20 Average Denaby s t i n e e

d 15 n s o Denaby has a Sure Start initiative and has recently built and p s e

r 10 opened a new leisure centre and skate park: % 5 ‘...the Dearne Valley Leisure Centre has had a positive l l s s s 0 s y n n h e t t t l a a u n r e

l impact on the leisure infrastructure’ (Denaby Regeneration i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m

o Manager, 2005) p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r d C t v l l T n u O E d

A In addition, Denaby Development Trust hosts a monthly public meeting with increasing attendance from both individuals and groups engaged in their community. Thurnscoe ‘Denaby has more individuals and groups involved and Thurnscoe has a wide range of initiatives taking place engaged in their communities. This is reflected in the fact that including Sure Start and a Sports Development worker. In the Denaby Main Forum public meeting now hosts reports addition, it has a Healthy Action Zone (HAZ) initiative called from 29 groups.’ (Denaby Regeneration Manager, 2005) ‘Heart Health Community Development Project’ which works with the community to improve heart health through physical Although it should be remembered that the survey question activity. However, engaging residents in community activities may not capture the activities of the 29 groups, the has been challenging: perceived increased levels of participation do not appear to be reflected in the survey findings (see Figures 4.1 and 4.5). ‘It is however difficult to get the community to accept they are Compared with the other eight communities, Denaby has the part of the solution.’ (Thurnscoe Regeneration Manager, lowest proportion of residents participating in community 2005) groups (four per cent) and below average levels of partici- pation in two or more groups (10 per cent), hobbies and The survey results for Thurnscoe are quite mixed (see Figures social groups (15 per cent), sports groups (10 per cent), 4.1 and 4.4). Thurnscoe has the highest level of partici- children’s groups (six per cent), adult education (three per 12 L

cent), environmental groups (zero per cent), health groups ‘The staff have worked to engage the community on a variety e

(two per cent), political groups (zero per cent), trade union of levels; holding capacity building events, promoting v groups (zero per cent) and religious groups (three per cent). training and development, encouraging volunteering. e l

Strengthening community and voluntary groups by sharing s

funding information and promoting sustainability...... I Figure 4.5: Levels of participation in Denaby o

believe that with the continued work of Feb – Dec 04 the f

25 Thorne Moorends Regeneration Partnership Board will be Denaby p

20 able to build upon their work and encourage increased a Average s t n participation from the community.’ (Thorne Moorends r e d

15 t n

o Regeneration Manager, 2005). i p s c e

r 10

i % Moorends has a Sure Start initiative which has a purpose p

5 a built, £1m, centre being built on the old infant school site. t l l s s s 0 s i y n h n e

t Moorends Bungalow project also offers a children’s t t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c o p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c

S breakfast club (children’s group).

m l i o H m o p n u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r

d C t v l l T n u i O E d

The survey results confirm the perceptions of the n A

Regeneration team and reveal that Moorends has relatively t

high levels of participation (see Figures 4.1 and 4.7). In h

Intake particular they have the highest proportion of residents partic- e

ipating in community groups (12 per cent) and groups for Initiatives taking place in Intake include a ‘well-established’ children (12 per cent). n i Sure Start project. In addition, the area has a recently n developed Community Social Enterprise centre that has a e Figure 4.7: Levels of participation in Moorends number of community projects based within in it and which c

25 o provides support and guidance to local residents and Moorends m 20 community and voluntary groups. Average s t m n e

d 15 n u However, the survey found that Intake, generally, has below o p s e n

r 10 average levels of participation (see Figures 4.1 and 4.6). % i This is particularly true for participation in hobbies and social 5 t i

groups which has the lowest levels of the nine communities e l l s s s s 0 s y n n h e t t t l a a u n r

(11 per cent). Only two of the measures indicate slightly e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m

higher levels of participation than the average: community o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r d C t

groups (nine per cent) which perhaps could be an outcome v l l T n u O E d

of the Community Social Enterprise Centre and health groups A (four per cent).

Figure 4.6: Levels of participation in Intake Rotherham 25 Intake 20 Brinsworth Average s t n e

d 15 n

o Brinsworth is less deprived than other areas in the study. For p s e

r 10

example its unemployment rate is better than the national % average. Consequently, it has not been subjected to the same 5 level of ABI intensity as the other eight areas and as a result l l s s s 0 s y h n n e t

t little has changed in between 2000 to 2004. However: t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r ‘an effective community development worker has helped the d C t v l l T n u O E d number of people participating in community groups and A activities. The Community Partnership gained Pioneer Areas funding which is beginning to make an impact as much of Moorends their effort is going into community engagement activities – health events, galas, entertainment evenings etc...... the The Thorne Moorends Regeneration team are positive about (Comprehensive) school is being more pro-active regarding the increased levels of community participation and the level community participation and engagement in it’s activities’ of work being directed at this outcome: (Brinsworth Regeneration Manager, 2005). 13 L

e In addition, the area has had a ‘Heart Health Development opment worker, Community Planning Officer, etc) which has

v Worker’ initiative in the area for the three years running up impacted on delivery’’ (Maltby Regeneration Manager,

e to April 2003. This initiative looked at lifestyles with the aim 2005). l

s of improving heart health.

The survey results appear to validate these views since they o

f Such comments and reports seem to be borne out by the indicate that Maltby has average to low levels of community

survey findings (see Figure 4.1 and 4.8). In general participation (see Figures 4.1 and 4.9). p

a Brinsworth has high levels of community participation. In

r particular the area has the highest levels of participation in t sports groups (20 per cent), adult education (eight per cent), Rawmarsh i c health groups (five per cent) and trade union groups (two per i p cent). All other individual group indicators are at an average Initiatives taking place in Rawmarsh include the Rawmarsh a level for the nine communities or higher. Sure Start Programme and the ‘High Street Centre’ – a t

i training and conference centre located within the local o Methodist church n Figure 4.8: Levels of participation in Brinsworth

25 i

n Rawmarsh has relatively high levels of community partici- Brinsworth

20 Average pation (see Figure 4.1 and 4.10). Indeed, Rawmarsh has s t t n

h the highest proportion of residents involved with local organ- e

d 15 n e o isations (53 per cent) and the second highest participation in p s e

r 10

religious groups (six per cent). Perhaps the high levels of n % participation in religious groups partly reflects the activities of i 5 n the High Street Centre which is located within a religious e l l s s s 0 s y n h n e t t t l a a building (the question asks about residents participation in u n r e l i t o o

i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l c g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m Religious groups, including going to a place of worship or o p u e P h e n

m o H r d R d o o C r e e a i

r d C t belonging to a religious based group). v l l T m n u O E d A m Figure 4.10: Levels of participation in Rawmarsh u

n Maltby 25

i Rawmarsh t 20 Average i s t e Amongst a wide range of projects Maltby has a Sure Start n e

d 15 s initiative, Neighbourhood Nurseries and a Mental Health n o p s e

Awareness Project. The area has also experienced tangible r 10

improvements such as new community and sports facilities. % Although the council and other statutory services are 5 l l s s s 0 s

beginning to encourage community involvement in service y n n h e t t t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b

delivery and neighbourhood management, community e l i c S

m l i o H m o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a participation has been hindered by vacancies in key i

r d C t v l l T n u O E positions: d A

‘Between 2000 and 2004 key positions have remained vacant for substantial periods of time (Community devel- Modelling levels of participation in the nine communities Figure 4.9: Levels of participation in Maltby 25 Although wide variations in community participation across Maltby 20 the nine communities have been identified, it is important to Average s t

n understand the extent to which the underlying characteristics e

d 15 n of the population may influence, or be associated with, o p s e

r 10 participation. For example, older people may be more likely

% to participate – therefore an area with substantially higher 5 proportion of older people might result in higher levels of l l s s s 0 s

y participation in that area. h n n e t t t l a a u n r e l i t o o i c p i i e n o o a n i t i r b t n o u i e e p a l g d u b e l i c S

m l i o H m o p u e P h e n

m H r d R d o o C r e e a i Further analysis of findings which goes beyond simple explo-

r d C t v l l T n u O E d ration of the data is, therefore, needed. Logistic regression A techniques can be used to unpick the extent to which 14 I L different factors help to explain why one group of residents Residents from Rawmarsh have the highest odds of e is more likely to participate in for example, sports groups, being involved with local organisations, over two and a v than another. This technique is useful as it allows a number half times more likely than residents from Kendray. e l of underlying explanatory variables – such as age – to be s I Darfield residents are more likely to be involved with taken into account when calculating the extent to which other two or more types of groups, hobbies or social groups, o

factors, for example education, may be associated with f sports groups and groups for older people compared participation. with the other areas. p I a Results can be presented as a series of odds ratios (ORs). Residents from Moorends are most likely to have taken r ORs reflect the probability of a person being in one group part in groups overall and participate in children’s t i rather than another after all other factors incorporated in the groups and health groups. c i analysis have been taken into account. For example, an p I Rawmarsh residents have the highest odds of odds ratio of two means that a person with a known attribute a

participating in religious groups. t

– say they are female – is, on average, twice as likely to i participate than a male, after all other factors (such as age I Kendray residents are least likely to participate in all o and education) have been taken into account. Hence odds types of groups except for hobbies and/or social n

groups (for which Intake residents have the lowest i

ratios can be adjusted for other factors. n

likelihood of participation) and community groups (for which Denaby residents have the lowest likelihood of t

Full ORs tables are not presented in the main body of the h

report, but are included in the appendices. Appendix 1.1 participation). e presents ORs for those who are involved with local organi- I There are no significant differences between the areas n sations, have taken part in group(s) and have taken part with in levels of participation in adult education or political i two or more types of groups by the study areas. It also n

and trade union groups. e indicates the levels of likelihood of participation across

different types of groups across the nine study areas. The c ORs have been adjusted for age, sex, educational o attainment, tenure, mobility, work status and if at least one IMD scores and levels of participation m child lives in the household. m

Although the nine communities (with the exception of u

Brinsworth) could be defined as deprived areas, chapter 2 n i

Figure 4.11: Adjusted ORs for participation illustrated the wide variation in levels of deprivation. Here t i

across the nine communities we explore the relationship between deprivation (as e

3.50 measured by IMD 2004) and levels of participation. s Organisations 3.00 Groups Overall levels of participation (involvement with local organ- 2+ groups 2.50 isations and participation in groups) are not related to IMD scores in the nine communities. However, as Figure 4.12 2.00 illustrates, there is a significant negative relationship between IMD scores on the one hand and participation in two or 1.50

1.00 Figure 4.12: IMD 2004 scores and 0.50 levels of participation 25

0.00 s y y y h h e e d t l s d k r b a b o Religious r t e r n l a i c o a a t f d s e a r n n r w

n IMD 2004 n I m e a s r o e M u n w D D o i K

h Rsq = 0.4535 r a

T 20 M R B g n i t Health a p i IMD 2004 c 15 i t r Rsq = 0.5933 a p

The OR scores indicate, on average, how likely a s t n e respondent from a particular study area is to participate d i 10 Adult education s e r compared with Kendray (which has some of the lowest odds IMD 2004 % of participation), taking into account the respondent and Rsq = 0.5352 household characteristics given above. 5 Participate 2+ group IMD 2004 In practice, as Figure 4.11 and Appendix 1.1 reveal, the 0 Rsq = 0.5512 modelled data presents a similar picture to the simple 20 30 40 50 60 70 frequencies outlined earlier. In summary, key findings are: IMD score 15 L

e more types of groups, adult education groups, health groups

v and religious groups on the other. In other words, the more

e deprived the area, the lower the levels of participation in l

s these types of groups.

o

f Having established the levels of participation across and

within the nine communities and explored the relationship p

a between levels of deprivation and participation the next

r chapter aims to understand who is participating. t i c i p a t i o n

i n

t h e

n i n e

c o m m u n i t i e s

16 W h o

p a r t i c i Having established the levels of participation across and p 5 Figure 5.2: Adjusted ORs for participation a within the nine communities, this chapter aims to understand by tenure t who within the nine communities is participating and in what e

types of groups they are participating in. 1.20 s Organisations ? 1.00 Groups 2+ groups

0.80 Who is participating?

0.60 Logistic regression modelling is used to find which cohorts of people are most likely to be participating in the nine commu- 0.40 nities. As noted earlier, logistic regression modelling allows us to understand if – for example – women are more likely to 0.20 participate than men independent of their age, educational l

0.00 r e d d attainment, employment status, tenure and whether or not d t a e i e e e n t t a i c v n n p i o w r e e u r r there are children in the household. Full tables are presented S P c O c in Appendix 1.2. o Tenure

Figure 5.1 (and appendix 1.2) indicates that females are more likely to be involved with organisations and participate However, the most marked influence on likelihood of partici- in groups than males in the communities. Women are 25 per pation is level of education (see Figure 5.3). Likelihood of cent more likely to be involved in local organisations, 31 per participation increases significantly with educational cent more likely to participate with groups and 41 per cent attainment. Residents with no formal qualifications are least more likely to participate in two or more groups than men. likely to participate and those with at least NVQ level four All differences are significant. (or equivalent) are most likely. For example, residents with at least NVQ level 4 are almost 6 times more likely to be involved with two or more types and groups compared with Figure 5.1: Adjusted ORs for participation those with no formal qualifications. by sex 1.60 Figure 5.3: Adjusted ORs for participation Organisations 1.40 by education Groups 7.00 1.20 2+ groups Organisations 1.00 6.00 Groups 2+ groups 0.80 5.00

0.60 4.00 0.40 3.00 0.20 2.00 0.00 e e l l a a

m 1.00 M e F Sex

0.00 r 2 1 3 4 / e e h Q Q Q Q t n V V V V o o n N N N N Tenure also has a significant relationship with likelihood of Education participation. Owner occupiers are found to be the most likely to participate overall and social renters the least likely. Age, work status or having children in the household do not For example, social renters are almost 25 per cent less likely have a significant influence on the likelihood that an to be involved with organisations than owner occupiers. individual in our study will participate. 17 W Who is participating in what? Tenure is a significant predictor for participation in adult

h education groups, political and/or trade union group

o Having gained an understanding of who is participating, this (owner occupiers are most likely to participate) and religious

p section also makes use of logistic regression modelling to groups (private renters are most likely to participate).

a gain an understanding of which cohorts of residents partic- However, tenure is not a significant predictor of participation

r ipate in what types of groups. in hobbies or social groups, sports groups, community t

i groups, groups for children, groups for older people, and c

i Similar to overall levels of participation, sex – on the whole health groups. p – was found to be a significant predictor of participation a across the different types of groups (see Figure 5.4). Similar to overall levels of participation, those with higher t

e Generally women are significantly more likely to participate levels of qualification are more likely to participate in all

s than men. This is most notable for adult education groups for types of groups. This is particularly true for; adult education ? which the women sampled are over three times more likely groups, health related groups, political or trade union groups to participate. (see Figure 5.6). For example residents with an educational attainment of at least NVQ level 4 are over ten times more likely to participate in adult education groups compared to Figure 5.4: Adjusted ORs for participation residents with no formal qualifications. in individual types of groups by sex 3.50 Male Figure 5.6: Adjusted ORs for participation 3.00 Female in individual types of groups by educational attainment 2.50 12.00 2.00 none/other 10.00 NVQ4 1.50

1.00 8.00

0.50 6.00 l t

0.00 r s l y h n n n e / / t t l a

e 4.00 l u u l i i e s o o p i i r d n o a d a c t e l i i n o d u c e o l a A i g u i b t e s O i c i

m l H l h b p u e e o m o C d R d P o e H a 2.00 r C t l t

0.00 r s s l y h n n n e t / / t t l a e l u u r l i i e s o o p i i r d n o a o d a c t e l i i n o d u c e p o l a A i

The three exceptions to this are hobbies and social clubs g u i b t e s O i c S i

m l H l h b p u e e o m o C d R d P o

(women are 26 per cent less likely to participate) and e H a r C political and/or trade union groups (women are 68 per cent t less likely to participate). There are no significant differences in likelihood of participation for sports groups. Although age was not found to be a significant predictor of overall participation, it is a significant predictor of partici- pation for certain types of groups. Older people are more Figure 5.5: Adjusted ORs for participation likely to be involved with: groups for older people, religious in individual types of groups by tenure groups and community groups, but less likely to be involved 2.50 with sports groups (see Figure 5.7). Owner occupied Private rented 2.00 Social rented Figure 5.7: Adjusted ORs for participation in individual types of groups and age 1.50 30.00

25.00 16-24 1.00 65+ 20.00

15.00 0.50 10.00

5.00

0.00 t s l n n / l u u o o i i o a d t i n c a A i g u t i

c 0.00 i

l l u e e

o Hobbies/ Sports Community Older Religious d R d P e a r

t social persons 18 W Work status is also related to two of the individual types of groups. Residents who are in work are significantly more h likely to participate in hobbies and social groups and sports o

groups than those not in work (see Figure 5.8). p a r

Figure 5.8: Adjusted ORs for participation in t i individual types of groups and work status c i p 2.00 a Workless

1.80 t

Not workless e 1.60 s

1.40 ? 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Hobbies/social Sports

Finally, having children within the household was found only to be a predicator for participation in groups for children. Those residents with a child in the household are over four and a half times more likely to participate than those without.

This chapter illustrates the importance of asking and analysing which types of group’s people are engaged with, in addition to the general questions about participation. Key findings include:

I Women, those with higher levels of education, owner occupiers and private renters are the most likely to participate overall. I Women are more likely to participate in all types of groups apart from hobbies and social groups, sports groups and political or trade union groups. I Older people are more likely to be involved with groups for older people, religious groups and community groups but less likely to be involved with sports groups. I Those with higher levels of education are more likely to participate in all types of groups. This is particularly true for adult education groups, health related groups and political or trade union groups.

19 20 C i v i c

e n g a g

This chapter describes how civic engagement and efficacy Civic engagement, efficacy and e 6 m is measured. It then goes on to explore the relationship community participation between civic engagement, efficacy and participation. e n

Figure 6.1 illustrates that civic engagement and personal t

efficacy are strongly related to participation. As levels of ,

empowerment increase, so does the likelihood of partici- e Measuring civic engagement and pation. For example, those with high empowerment scores f f

efficacy are almost three times more likely to be involved with local i c

organisations and participate with groups compared to a

The earlier social capital report 6 identifies civic engagement those with low scores. c and efficacy as one element of social capital. y

a

Self efficacy is defined as ‘the degree to which a person Figure 6.1: Adjusted ORs for participation n feels in control over important aspects of his or her life’2. by empowerment d

System efficacy is defined as ‘confidence amongst citizens 4.00 c that institutions will listen and respond to citizens views’ 7. 3.50 Organisations o Groups m 3.00 2+ groups m Residents are thought unlikely to engage in civic affairs 2.50

unless they believe they have an influence. u 2.00 n

1.50 i

Several survey questions elicit resident’s perceptions of civic t

engagement and efficacy: 1.00 y 0.50 p

‘Would you say you are well informed about local 0.00 a h m w w g u i o o i r l L

d

affairs?’ H y e r t e M V i

Empowerment index c

and how much do you agree with the following statements; i p

‘I am satisfied with the amount of control I have over This relationship is also found to be the case for all the a t

decisions that affect my personal life.’ individual types of groups, with the exception of political or i trade union groups for which levels of empowerment are not o n ‘By working together, people in my neighbourhood can a significant predictor (see Figure 6.2). The relationship is influence decisions that affect the neighbourhood.’ strongest for participation in groups for children and adult education groups. As with the earlier report, answers to the three questions on civic engagement and efficacy were combined into an Figure 6.2: Adjusted ORs for participation in ‘empowerment index’. The higher a resident’s score the types of groups by levels of empowerment better their knowledge of local affairs, the more control over their personal life and the more influence they perceive over 6.00 very low decisions that affected their neighbourhood. 5.00 high

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

6 Gilbertson et al (2005). 0.00 l t r s s l y n h n e t / t t l a e u u r l 7 i i e s o p i r d n o o d a c Campbell, C, Wood, R and Kelly, M (1999) Social Capital and Health, Health Education t e l i i o d u e p o l a A g i b e s O i c S m

Authority, 22. l H h b p u e

8 m o C d R

Joint institute for Social & Economic Research (1999) People and Places in the North West o e H Inner City area of Sheffield. C 21 C I

i When the responses to the three components of the empow- When the three components of the empowerment index v erment index are considered separately, generally, those (how well informed about local affairs, satisfaction with i

c who feel informed are most likely to participate (see Figure level of control, amount of influence) are treated

e 6.3). separately, those who feel informed are most likely to

n participate. g Figure 6.3: Adjusted ORs for participation by a

g feeling informed

e 2.50 m Not well

e Well 2.00 n t

, 1.50

e f

f 1.00 i c a 0.50 c y

a 0.00 s s s s y n n t / t l n r i p p e o i r n a u u o o i n n d t u c o o p l i r r u i t a S i

m l h s g i G e

o m d C n d + P o a a 2 r C g t r

O c o

m Residents who feel well informed about local affairs are

m significantly more likely to be involved with local community

u organisations, groups, two or more groups, sports groups,

n community groups, groups for children and political or trade i

t union groups. y

p Feeling satisfied with the level of influence over decisions

a that affect the neighbourhood is only significantly

r associated with participating in two or more types of groups t

i and in hobbies and social groups. Those who are satisfied c

i are 35 per cent more likely to participate in two or more p groups and 37 per cent more likely to participate in a hobbies and social groups. t i o Finally, satisfaction with the level of control residents have n over decisions that affect their personal life is negatively associated with participation in community groups and political and trade union groups.

The relationship between feeling informed about local affairs and participation is interesting to consider. Does feeling informed act as a driver for engagement or do people who participate feel more informed? On balance, this relationship may well be reciprocal and increases in levels of feeling informed may increase levels of participation in a community, which in turn may enhance how informed people feel, and so on.

The key findings from this section of the report show that:

I Civic engagement and personal efficacy are strongly related to participation – as levels of empowerment increase, so does the likelihood of participation. This relationship holds for participation in all types of groups. 22 T r u s t

a n d

c o

7This chapter describes how trust is conceptualised and measurement of ‘linking social capital’. Linking social capital m measured and then moves on to explore the relationship ‘refers to the relationship between individual groups in m between trust and community participation. different social strata in a hierarchy where power, social status and wealth are accessed by different groups’ 13. u n i Secondly, a ‘horizontal trust’ score was calculated by t y

Measuring trust summing resident’s responses to levels of trust in neighbours, friends and family. Horizontal trust or personal trust is used p Trust is important in the debate about social capital. Some here as a measure on ‘bonding social capital’. Bonding a 9 r

commentators see trust as an outcome of social capital, and social capital is ‘provided by close family and friends t i

others regard it as a component of the shared values which providing tangible assistance and care and creating a sense c

14 i

make up social capital, whereas some consider it to be of well-being’ . p 10

both . There are often two types of trust – trust in people we a

know and the trust we have in those we don’t. t i o

11 Putnam distinguishes personal trust from social or system Trust and community participation n trust. It is argued that the first (personal trust) leads to the second (system trust), which in turn leads to better economic Overall horizontal trust is found to have a stronger performance (see the sister report for more information 12). relationship with community participation than vertical trust. Resident’s levels of vertical trust are not related to overall The survey questionnaire collected information about participation. However, those with high levels of horizontal resident’s levels of personal trust and system trust: trust are significantly more likely to participate than those with low levels (see Figure 7.1). For example residents with high ‘How much do you trust these groups of people?’ levels of horizontal trust are over two and a half times more likely to be involved with local organisations compared to I Police residents with low levels of horizontal trust. I Courts I Government Figure 7.1: Adjusted ORs for participation by horizontal trust I Local council 3.00 I Local councillors Organisations 2.50 Groups I Local employers 2+ groups I Neighbours 2.00

I Friends 1.50 I Family 1.00

This question has enabled two trust indexes to be 0.50 constructed. Firstly, a ‘vertical trust’ score was calculated by 0.00

summing resident’s responses to levels of trust in police, h m w g u i o i L d courts, government, local council, local councillors and local H e employers. Vertical trust or system trust is used here as a M Horizontal trust

9 Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. ISUMA Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1) pp11-17. 10 Cote, S., Healy, T. (2001) The well-being of nations: the role of human and social capital, Organisation for Economic co-operation and Development, Paris. 11 13 Putnam, R (1993) Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princetown Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic University Press. outcomes. ISUMA Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1) pp11-17. 12 14 Gilbertson et al (2005). Gilbertson et al (2005), p8. 23 T

r A slightly more refined picture emerges if we consider This chapter, again, highlights the importance of exploring u residents levels of trust by the type of groups they are the types of groups people are engaged with as well as s

t involved with. examining levels of participation more generally.

a Figure 7.2 illustrates that horizontal trust is positively Key findings indicate that: n

d associated with participation in hobbies and social groups,

sports groups, community groups and groups for children. I Horizontal trust (bonding social capital) seems to have c

o Those with high levels of horizontal trust are significantly more influence on overall participation than vertical trust

m more likely to participate in these groups than residents with (linking social capital). low levels. m I Those with high horizontal trust are more likely to be

u involved with: hobbies/social; sports; community and

n Figure 7.2: Adjusted ORs for participation in children’s groups. i t types of groups by horizontal trust I Those with high vertical trust are more likely to be y 4.50 involved with: adult education and religious groups.

p 4.00 Low I

a Medium Different types of social capital (i.e. ‘bonding’ or 3.50 High r ‘bridging’) appear to have an influence on the type of 3.00 t groups that people participate in. i 2.50 c

i 2.00 p

a 1.50

t 1.00 i

o 0.50 n

0.00 l s y n t / t a r i i e s r n o c e i d u p o l i b s S m h b m o C o H C

Although vertical trust was not found to be a significant predictor of overall participation it is related to participation in adult education groups and religious groups. For example those with high levels of vertical trust are more than twice as likely as those with low levels to participate in religious groups.

Figure 7.3: Adjusted ORs for participation in types of groups by vertical trust 2.50 Low Medium High 2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 t s l n u u o i o d t i a A g i c l u e d R e

The findings may suggest that those with high levels of horizontal trust (or bonding social capital) are more likely to be involved with groups which are, potentially, made up and organised by people similar to themselves e.g. sports, hobbies and social groups. Whilst high levels of vertical trust may indicate a greater likelihood for involvement with insti- tutional type activities such as adult education and religious groups. 24 S o c i a l

n e t w

This chapter describes how social networks and reciprocal Levels of reciprocal help and support have been measured o 8 r

help and support are measured. It then explores the using three survey questions: k

relationship between social networks, reciprocal help and s

support and community participation. ‘In general what kind of neighbourhood would you say you ,

live in? Would you say it is a neighbourhood in which r people do things together and try and help each other or e c

one in which people mostly go their own ways’ i p

Measuring social networks and r

reciprocal help and support ‘In the past 6 months have you done a favour for a o neighbour?’ c a 15

Putnam’s definition of social capital adopted in our earlier l

studies focuses on norms, trust and networks. and h e l

The survey contains two questions which measure social ‘If you needed a lift to be somewhere urgently, could you ask p

networks: anyone for help?’ a

‘Thinking about your immediate area would you say that you These questions, which help measure ‘bonding social n d

know most/many/a few/not many of the people in your capital, have a ‘degree of consistency between responses neighbourhood?’ and over time’ 19. s u p

and p o

‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that this neigh- Social networks, reciprocal help and r t

bourhood is a place where people from different support and community participation backgrounds get on well together? a Two of the reciprocity questions – help each other and n Both these questions are measures of “local social capital” needed a lift could ask someone – were found to have little d

which was identified as important to local residents in one of relationship with likelihood of participation. c the workshops undertaken with local people 16. The second o m question (which was added to the survey in 2004) relates to However, the third question on reciprocity – favour for a recent developments in the concept of social capital. In neighbour – was found to be strongly related to likelihood of m 17 Putnam’s later work , he distinguished between two u

important types of social capital – bridging and bonding. n

Figure 8.1: Adjusted ORs for participation i Bonding social capital, as defined earlier in this report in t

and favour for a neighbour y chapter 7, relates to the cementing of homogeneous groups 5.00 and is good for ‘getting by’. Bridging social capital are the p

bonds of connectedness that are formed across diverse 4.50 Haven’t done a favour a Have done a favour social groups and seen as crucial for ‘getting ahead’ 18. The 4.00 r t

new question incorporated into the 2004 survey – of 3.50 i c

whether people from different backgrounds get on – is 3.00 i designed to elicit bridging social capital. p 2.50 a

2.00 t i 1.50 o n 1.00

15 Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton: 0.50 Princeton University Press.

0.00 t s s s s s

16 l y n n h e t t t l u n u r l i p p e

Gilbertson et al (2005), p9 o p i r n o u u o o d a t i 17 i o d t u o o e p l a A g r r i

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling alone – The collapse and revival of American community, New e a i c S m l H h s g p u i G e

York: Simon and Schukster m C r n d R + o e e 18 a 2 d C g

see Gilbertson et al (2005), p9 l 19 r O Gilbertson et al (2005), p43 O 25 S

o participation (see Figure 8.1). Those who have done a Figure 8.3: Adjusted ORs for participation and

c favour for a neighbour in the last six months are significantly

i people from different backgrounds get on

a more likely to participate overall and participate in most 3.00 l types of groups. The only exception to this is participation in Definitely disagree n hobbies and social groups and political or trade union 2.50 Definitely agree e groups which were not found to be related to having done t a favour for a neighbour. w 2.00 o Social networks appear to have a stronger relationship with 1.50 r

k participation (see Figures 8.2 and 8.3). The more people in

s the area that residents know, the more likely they are to 1.00 , participate in two or more types of groups, and in hobbies

r and social groups, community groups and groups for 0.50 e children. For example residents who say they know many c i

0.00 l s s s s n t

people in the neighbourhood are over two and a half times / a p n r p p i e s r u u o o c e i i d t o o p o l r r i b s a r

more likely to participate in groups for children than people S h s g b i G

o C n o + a H

who do not know many people. 2 g r c O a l

Figure 8.2: Adjusted ORs for participation

h In summary, of the three reciprocity questions explored, only and know people in the area e having done a favour is strongly related to levels of partici-

l 3.00

p pation. Not many

a 2.50 Most I Social networks appear to be more strongly related to n levels of participation. d 2.00 I Both indicators – knowing people in the area and s

u 1.50 agreeing with the statement that people from different

p backgrounds in the area get on – are positively related p 1.00 to participation. o

r 0.50 t

a

0.00 l s y n / t a i p i e s n r n u c e i d u o o l r i b s m d h g b

m o C + o H

2 C c o m A resident’s opinion on whether people from different m backgrounds in the area get on is also a strong predictor of

u participation. Residents that definitely agree that people from

n different backgrounds in the area get on are significantly i

t more likely to be involved with organisations and participate y with groups, two or more types of groups, hobbies and

p social groups, sports groups and groups for children than

a those who definitely disagree with the statement. r t i c i p a t i o n

26 A t t i t u d e s

t o

9This chapter explores the relationship between attitudes A worrying relationship is found when we explore partici- w towards the local area and levels of participation. It then pation levels for those who want to move out of the area (see a

considers which cohorts of people want to move out of the Figure 9.1). Residents who want to move out of the area are r

area and which are moving into the area. significantly more likely to be involved with organisations d and participate in groups than those who want to stay. These s

residents are also 62 per cent more likely to take part in t adult education groups. h Measuring attitudes towards the area e

These findings raise some interesting questions about the a Other surveys have found that attitudes towards the area long term sustainability of these areas. For example; is partic- r e

relate to levels of participation. Analysis of the New Deal for ipation good for the areas long term sustainability? Are those a 20 Community survey data found length of residence in the who want to move out of the areas relatively better off than area to be positively related to participation (as length of those moving in? a residence increases so does likelihood of participation). The n d

analysis also revealed that those who perceive a high

Figure 9.1: Adjusted ORs for participation p degree of problems in the local area (anti-social and environ-

and want to stay in the area a mental problems) are more likely to participate than those 2.00 r who do not. t

Yes i c No i

Within this report attitudes towards the area have been p 1.50

measured using three survey questions: a t i o ‘Taking everything into account, to what extent are you 1.00 satisfied or dissatisfied with (this area) as a place to live?’ n

‘How long have you lived in (this area)?’ 0.50

and

0.00 t s s l n n u p o i u o d t i t o a A r

‘Do you want to stay in (this area)?’ a c s u i G n d e a g r O

Attitudes towards the area and participation Who wants to move out of the local Satisfaction with the area does not influence participation area? apart from participation in sports groups. Those who are satisfied are 42 per cent more likely to participate in sports Exploration of who want to move out of the areas in the study groups than residents who are dissatisfied. reveals that:

Length of residence was found only to be a predictor of I Younger people are more likely to want to move – participation in adult education. Perhaps surprisingly, this residents aged 65 and over are 80 per cent less likely relationship is negative. For example, residents who have to want to move compared to those aged 16 to 24. lived in the area between four and 10 years are 65 per cent I Private or social renters are more likely to want to move less likely to participate in adult education groups than – private renters are 85 per cent more likely to want to residents who have been in the area less than a year. move compared with owner occupiers. I 20 More educated residents are more likely to want to Hickman, P and Manning, J (2005) Community involvement in neighbourhood regeneration: who participates? Voluntary Action, Vol 7, 1 pp43-51 move – residents who have attained at least NVQ level 27 A four are more than twice as likely to want to move as Nevertheless, the overall picture is quite encouraging. t

t those with no formal qualifications. Although, residents wanting to move out of the area are i t I younger, more educated and more likely to participate, in-

u But, work status is not a significant predictor of wanting movers into the nine communities are also younger and, on

d to move. the whole, more educated and also more likely to participate e

s in adult education groups.

t

o Who is moving in to the communities? w The definition of in-movers adopted by the report is residents a

r who have been in the area for less than a year. Logistic

d regression modelling reveals that in-movers to the nine s communities are not dissimilar to those expressing a desire to

t move out (see Figure 9.2). Residents who have moved into h the area within the last year are: e

a I Younger – residents aged 65 and over are 95 per cent r less likely to be in-movers than those aged 16 to 24 e

a I Social or, in particular, private renters – private renters

a are six and a half times more likely to be in-movers

n compared with owner occupiers. d

Similar to those who want to move out of the area, work status p is not a significant predictor of which residents are in-movers. a r

t Finally, the relationship between educational attainment and i

c likelihood of being an in-mover is not straight forward. i

p Residents with NVQ level one are least likely to be in-movers

a and those with NVQ level three are most likely. t i o

n Figure 9.2: Adjusted ORs for want to move and in-movers 7.00 Want to move 6.00 In-movers

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 e d d d 1 3 4 4 2 4 4 + 4 n e e e 5 2 3 6 5 t t i - - - - Q Q Q Q o n n 6 p V V V V 6 5 5 5 e e u N r r 1 2 5 3 c N N N N

l c e t a o i a

c r v i o e r n S P w O Age Tenure Education

It should be remembered when studying who wants to move out of the area versus who is moving into the area, that the first of these questions relates to aspirations. It establishes if residents would like to move, but does not provide an indication of whether this desire will be translated into an actual move. Indeed, it is unlikely that all residents wanting to move will move out of the area. 28 C o n c l u s i o n

a

10This study provides an insight into the levels of community Key messages for policy makers and the community and n participation in nine ex-coalfield communities in South voluntary sector include: d

Yorkshire, and examines how levels of participation, and p participation in different types of groups in these areas, 1 Educational attainment, feelings of empowerment and o

relate to particular components of social capital (civic levels of trust are important factors which influence the t

engagement, efficacy, trust and neighbourhood reciprocity). likelihood of participation in local organisations and e It also examines whether attitudes towards the local area groups. n t

influence levels of participation. i 2 Participation in local organisations and groups enhances a

feelings of civic engagement. l The report utilises data collected for two earlier social capital p

studies undertaken in these communities and this analysis is 3 Certain types of social capital appear to influence o

funded by Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham PCTs. different types of participation - if involvement in wider l i

groups is to be encouraged, then it may be necessary c The main results are summarised below. to pay attention to, and invest in, policies and initiatives y

which help to enhance a communities’ ‘vertical trust’ i.e. i m trust in employers and other institutions. p

4 Given the relationship between wanting to move, l Summary of findings i participation and educational attainment - it is important c to consider issues which relate to a local area’s long a Overall participation levels are higher for: t term sustainability. i o

I Women n s I Better educated I Owner occupiers I Those with high levels of empowerment and, in particular, those who feel well informed about local affairs I Those with high levels of horizontal trust (bonding social capital), although participation in adult education and religious groups is associated with high levels of vertical trust (linking social capital)

The bad news is:

I Participation is associated with aspirations to leave the local area - those that want to move are more likely to participate with organisations, groups and adult education groups than people who want to stay in the area

However, the good news is:

I Residents who have newly moved into the area are not dissimilar in characteristics to those who want to move. They are also more likely to participate in adult education groups 29 30 A

Appendix 1.1: Adjusted ORs for participation by area p p l n e a i o s i e c t l n n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a d s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

i m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l c t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o e d + r p e e a o r O 2 G g S C H C A O t P Area H R s Kendray 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s Brinsworth 1.48 1.56 2.25 0.97 2.47 1.34 3.13 2.14 2.78 3.45 2.09 Denaby 2.19 1.67 1.57 1.18 2.23 0.74 3.56 2.15 3.49 1.53 2.26 Intake 1.22 1.30 1.43 0.72 1.49 1.44 1.94 0.85 2.04 3.24 1.40 Darfield 1.81 1.98 3.01 1.49 2.75 1.01 3.87 2.03 4.89 2.22 3.20 Maltby 1.32 1.42 1.50 0.89 1.31 1.42 1.98 2.09 1.84 2.78 2.33 Moorends 2.05 2.28 2.22 1.10 2.23 2.14 4.87 2.01 2.47 3.65 1.25 Rawmarsh 2.74 2.25 2.89 1.39 1.63 1.64 3.11 2.16 4.88 2.38 3.67 Thurnscoe 1.52 1.67 1.66 1.33 1.72 1.58 2.87 1.56 4.38 1.14 1.19 Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant

Appendix 1.2: ORs for participation l n a i o s i e c t l n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o e d + r p e a o r 2 O g S G C H C O A H R t Sex P Male 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Female 1.25 1.31 1.41 0.74 1.38 2.38 3.01 2.21 1.94 2.03 0.32 Age 16-24 n.s. n.s. n.s 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s. n.s 1.00 n.s 1.00 n.s 25-34 1.57 0.96 1.96 2.70 1.75 35-54 1.30 0.64 2.12 5.14 2.11 55-64 1.69 0.62 3.44 5.74 3.60 65+ 1.52 0.40 3.15 26.36 6.84 Education none/other 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NVQ1 1.26 1.32 2.13 1.13 1.70 0.96 2.26 2.06 1.26 0.79 1.74 2.94 NVQ2 1.87 2.00 2.21 1.22 1.95 1.90 2.18 4.13 1.29 2.45 2.04 1.21 NVQ3 2.32 2.60 2.90 1.53 2.10 3.62 3.14 6.83 2.58 2.50 1.66 2.80 NVQ4 4.55 4.95 5.81 1.79 3.96 2.84 4.65 10.67 1.93 7.71 4.67 5.29 Workless Yes n.s. n.s. n.s 1.00 1.00 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s n.s n.s n.s. No 1.38 1.31 Children No n.s. n.s. n.s n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.00 n.s. n.s. n.s n.s n.s. Yes 4.65 Tenure Owner occupied 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 1.00 n.s. n.s. 1.00 1.00 Social rented 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.58 0.45 0.43 Private rented 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.55 2.32 0.42

Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant 31 A

p Appendix 1.3: Adjusted ORs empowerment index and participation p l n e a i o s i e c t l n n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a d s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

i m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l c t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o e d + r p e e a o r O G 2 g H S C C A O H R t P s Very low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s Low 1.45 1.45 1.61 1.61 1.73 1.26 2.52 2.69 1.87 0.45 0.62 Medium 1.56 1.57 2.04 1.80 2.08 1.52 2.92 2.60 1.53 0.62 0.82 High 2.85 2.87 3.62 2.23 3.35 3.91 4.81 4.69 3.28 1.41 1.43 Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant

Appendix 1.4: Adjusted ORs civic engagement, efficacy and participation l n a i o s i e c t l n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o e d + r p e a o r O G 2 g H S C C O A t R H Control P Disagree n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 Neither 0.54 0.50 0.40 Agree 0.87 0.66 0.34 Influence Disagree n.s n.s 1.00 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s Neither 0.93 1.09 Agree 1.35 1.37 Informed Not well/ poorly 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s. 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 Don’t know 1.08 1.03 0.75 0.67 0.79 0.99 2.17 Well 1.26 1.27 1.42 1.26 1.77 1.46 2.11 Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant

Appendix 1.5: Adjusted ORs for trust and participation l n a i o s i e c t l n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h e o d + r p e a o r t O 2 R P O G g S H C H C Vertical trust A Low n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s 1.00 n.s Medium 1.57 1.70 High 1.49 2.19 Horizontal trust Low 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s Medium 1.52 1.45 1.19 2.49 1.28 1.51 1.74 High 2.58 2.50 2.40 3.59 2.27 3.66 3.94

Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant 32 A

Appendix 1.6: Adjusted ORs for social capital and participation p p l n e a i o s i e c t l n n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a d s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

i m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l c t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o Help each e d + r p e e a o r O 2 G g S H C C A O R t P other H s Go own way 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s Mixture/other 0.96 Help each other 0.83 Favour for a neighbour No 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s Just moved 1.12 1.01 0.30 0.57 0.76 1.19 4.71 0.04 0.01 1.47 Yes 1.54 1.54 1.81 1.30 1.88 1.52 4.63 1.89 2.07 1.68 Need lift could ask someone No 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s Just moved 0.53 0.30 Yes 0.88 0.35 Know people in the area Not many n.s n.s 1.00 1.00 n.s 1.00 1.00 n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s Few 1.15 1.66 1.48 1.72 0.33 Many 0.83 1.52 1.08 1.50 0.31 Most 1.76 2.01 2.41 2.67 0.51 People different backgrounds get on Def disagree 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n.s 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s Tend disagree 0.81 0.87 0.90 1.22 0.88 1.45 Don’t know/too few/all same 1.04 1.08 0.91 1.07 0.95 1.16 Tend agree 1.20 1.24 1.12 1.41 1.34 1.19 Def agree 1.89 1.84 1.81 1.66 1.98 2.16

Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant

Appendix 1.7: Adjusted ORs for attitudes towards the area and participation l n a i o s i e c t l n f o a o p s y i o c t t n o i

/ u a s o e s n / s i n s l d e u i p u s e n e E

i a n p o r h s r p u

m i t t c t p b y l a l d i r u e e t l t g u m b

i a i u i g o o d d l l l r o r o h o e d + r p e a o r t G O 2 O C R P S g H C A Stay in area H Yes 1.00 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s No 1.34 1.31 1.62 Satisfied with area Dissatisfied n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s Neither 1.32 Satisfied 1.42 Length residents in area Less year n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 1.00 n.s n.s n.s n.s 1 to less 4 0.32 4 to less 10 0.35 10+ 0.46 Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant 33 A

p Appendix 1.8: ORs for who wants to move

p and who has moved into the areas e

n Want to d move In-movers

i Sex c

e Male n.s n.s

s Female Age 16-24 1.00 1.00 25-34 0.70 0.93 35-54 0.50 0.42 55-64 0.46 0.15 65+ 0.20 0.05 Tenure Owner occupied 1.00 1.00 Social rented 1.28 1.98 Private rented 1.85 6.56 Workless Yes n.s n.s No Child No n.s n.s Yes Education None/other/skills 1.00 1.00 NVQ1 0.93 0.68 NVQ2 1.33 0.83 NVQ3 1.47 2.03 NVQ4 2.07 1.34

Note: Figures in bold are significant at the 95% level / n.s is not significant

34 Further copies of this report are available from:

Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University Unit 10 – Science Park Howard Street Sheffield S1 2LX

Tel: 0114 225 3073 Fax 0114 225 2197

Price £10.00 inc p&p ISBN 1 84387 222 6 This information can be made available in other formats. Please contact us for further details.

Cover photograph © David Bocking 2003 (0114 266 4866 · [email protected]) Design: www.paulpugh.co.uk (0114 230 2182) Print: Northends (0114 250 0331)